Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Rare Octopus fossil confims evolution ... I guess.

Full story Here:

Pay attention here:

What most surprised Fuchs and his colleagues Giacomo Bracchi and Robert Weis was how similar the specimens are to modern octopus. "These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species," Fuchs said.

But then...

"The more primitive relatives of octopuses had fleshy fins along their bodies. The new fossils are so well preserved that they show, like living octopus, that they didn't have these structures," Fuchs said.

This insight pushes back the origins of the modern octopus by tens of millions of years, he said.

You know, in physics if we have a theory... like say... The theory that all particles and waves require a medium through which to propagate, but then I discover that particles and waves can travel through vacuum -- Its understandable that I might conclude that hidden in the vacuum is a medium which I might call 'the ether'. But I haven't then advanced my understanding of physics. I've simply propped up my theory by continuing to assume that it is true. I can then spend my time trying to find the ether. That would be a valid search. But if I continued to find that there was no measurable ether, it would not be ridiculous to postulate that there was no ether. That an 'ether' was not the way to connect the dots from where I do have understanding to where I don't. Every article which says something like "this new finding radically changes what we know about the evolution of ______" increases my skepticism. Perhaps its just the way to grab attention in an article, but consider this. While Einstein's theory of Gravity improved what we know about gravity, it didn't invalidate Newtonian gravity. Einstein's theories explains gravity more broadly and better. It didn't conclude that massive bodies repel each other. My question is how many times do you have to re-think a theory before you look for a new one?

Also notice that while I only criticize this article, I offer no theory to replace it. There's nothing obvious to draw from this except that:
some 95 Million yr old octopi look just like 1 yr old octopi,
and that this finding is most surprising to evolutionists.

I believe that the result here is surprising because the model predicts that old stuff will be very different from new stuff due of constant adaptation of species over time.

Conversely, the finding that Einstein gravity dilates (or stretches out) time was surprising because it was not predicted by Newtonian gravity, not because it contradicted a Newtonian prediction. Newton had nothing to say about gravity's affect on time.


Blogger Chuck Wade said...

wow good post. Thanks. Hey I called you back yesterday, but I suppose, as per your message, you didn't want to call me back. Too bad, I was in Chapel Hill last night. Your loss SUCKA!!

9:06 PM  
Blogger Chris mankey said...

"95 Million yr old octopi look just like 1 yr old octopi,
and that this finding is most surprising to evolutionists."

Except that it's not true! The octopus doesn't look very modern at all.

1:35 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

Yeah and did you guys know it was snowing the other day? Global warming my ass!

1:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home